How did David slay Goliath

Super Tramp said:

I read them and found them humorous.

Jokes are usually funnier if you're on the side doing the mocking than if you're on the side being mocked. Personally, I see nothing funny whatsoever with US gun laws. And either way, politics don't belong on these forums, and you know it.

MJ. Smith said:

That depends entirely on your theory of language as communication. The humor was assuming that the reader would supply the political context.

Political? In my state of Oklahoma it is more of a cultural thing.

      Edited out political/cultural comments

But enough of the cultural banter. 

Super Tramp said:

But enough of the cultural banter.

Try explaining your culture to the parents who lost kids at the Sandy Hook Massacre. !

Jonathan Pitts said:

Can I suggest that neither the author of 1 Samuel nor David knew at exactly which moment Goliath died?

You can...but what about the Holy Spirit? Are you suggesting the inspiration behind what we have in the text was guessing, or taking pot shots?

David Paul said:

Are you suggesting the inspiration behind what we have in the text was guessing, or taking pot shots?

Please, don't get us started on drugs now that we've finished the discussion of guns.  [;)]

Super Tramp said:

My kids have done all of this and more. Making God the center of our home sets my household apart from hers.

Do you know ...for sure... That she did not put God at the center of her home? Sounds slightly judgmental to me. If you and your kids are the Bible Scholars you would have us believe, Then you are painfully aware that down through the ages, Parents have striven to facilitate a God centered home, Only to watch their children become some of God's greatest enemies. Providing a Biblical foundation is the very best thing you can do to kick-start your kids walk with God. It does not, however, insure that all will CHOOSE to  remain within the fold. I praise God for your good fortune. None of this justifies Common citizens having assault weapons or high capacity mags in their home. If folks want to carry an assault weapon...They should join the military. They will be assigned one for free.

MJ. Smith said:

Okay, ST - go mow your lawn.

[Y] [H]

Ralph Hale said:

runs from an old woman with a fly swatter.

She is a lady and she got her hunting license at 9. She shoots flies with a .22 and can knock that battery off your shoulder at 95 yards.

Now back to the lawn.

George Somsel said:

Schezic said:

None of this justifies Common citizens having assault weapons or high capacity mags in their home. If folks want to carry an assault weapon...They should join the military. They will be assigned one for free.

But the Constitution does.  You display an astounding ignorance of that.  The 2nd amendment was not put in there so that citizens could bag a few squirrels.  It was precisely so that they could resist a government which turned tyrannical as we are seeing it do now.  I can assure you that if they come after me I will effect the Hebrew provision, מוֹת יָמֻתוּ.

 

They had assault rifles with 100 round drums when the  2nd amendment was drafted?

 

 

George Somsel said:

That means that, if I can pick it up and walk with it, I have a right to it.

Rocket launchers? Surface to air missiles? The hand controller for a drone? I respect your right to be wrong.

Oh what did William and I unleash? We deleted our messages when it was pointed out they might lead to something like this. Most people didn't even see those particular posts, and then this snowball got started anyway. Can't you folks respect our wish to put the horse back into the barn?

And to all you many lurkers who are still reading this thread (yes the read count is exceedingly high on this one): this thread is proof that if you post a wisecrack, even though you might not have intended to start a controversy and certainly didn't want to start something, you will inevitably start something. There are people out there waiting to take the bait. So if you think you're just being funny and won't be taken as implying anything contentious, think again! Think about all the ways it could be taken by anyone, and back off before you hit that "Post" button.

With much regret,  (this is one of the reasons I'm no longer an MVP; apparently I haven't learned my lesson)
Rosie

Oh, Rosie ... the Logos forum's all about Christianity!  Forget the geology of the wadi where David selected his rocks. Christianity is about how much weapon-weight you can lift. Children and leaders (prior poster) are just a cost for the Christians.

 

David Paul said:

I found this thread more interesting when folks were fabricating out-of-thin-air guesses about Goliath's death...and that was pretty boring and tedious.

Yes.These right-wing, wing-nut, nut-job, conspiracy theorists could mess up a one man parade. [:@]

George Somsel said:

Schezic said:

They had assault rifles with 100 round drums when the constitution was drafted?

It doesn't say "muskets" but "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."  That means that, if I can pick it up and walk with it, I have a right to it.

Sorry. That seems over the top to me.[^o)]

 

David Paul said:

Jonathan Pitts said:

Can I suggest that neither the author of 1 Samuel nor David knew at exactly which moment Goliath died?

You can...but what about the Holy Spirit? Are you suggesting the inspiration behind what we have in the text was guessing, or taking pot shots?

As I opened my first post on this thread:

[quote]

I may have a different approach to interpreting scripture to you, but I'll try to help.

I do not consider the Bible to be necessarily inspired in the sense that you mention. I just don't know to what extent each author was in touch with and influenced by the Holy Spirit. What I do see is that much of the Bible shows its human origins. 1 Samuel does not claim to be anything other than a historical record of a particular place at a particular time. I expect it to contain the minor inconsistencies that are found in most human work, such as the one that started this thread. There may also be political bias, supporting David's (or his successors') right to be king.

My overall view of the Bible is as a collection of human attempts to understand and express what we know of God (in 1 Samuel, God's actions in history, as the author understands them). As such, it contains much truth about God but expressed through the limits of human understanding. The texts are vital because they tell us what God has done in history and are written by people closer to the events than any other record that we have. The texts have been preserved and approved by Jewish and Christian leaders of the centuries as spiritually uplifting to read and study, and I would not disagree with that. But I do not believe that they are necessarily inerrant, dictated by God or inspired in the common evangelical sense of the word.

I would instead use the word inspiration to describe the ongoing process by which we can engage with God as the Holy Spirit through scripture. There is dialogue to enter into, which did not stop when the New Testament was finished. In prayer, we can ask the same sorts of questions that the biblical authors asked, read their answers in scripture and move them on to another stage with insights that God has given us. This can range from using my medical knowledge to say that Goliath may not have been dead when he fell to asking how Jesus would have engaged with modern homosexuals, being guided by the dialogue of the whole of scripture and beyond not the authoritative statements of one era.

In the 20th century this approach (or something similar) was known as liberal-evangelicalism. It is now re-emerging under various names. I am currently reading Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity, which so far seems to follow a very similar path and has helped to clarify my thoughts. Last night I was recommended Having Words With God: the Bible as Conversation by Huhn, which may be next on my reading list.

I know many of you will disagree. I started life with a more conventional evangelical understanding, and it has taken a long and lonely 20-year journey to get to a position that to me has intellectual rigour and consistency. If we take a completely conservative view of inspiration, the implications are a one-week creation, no evolution, the earth at the centre of the universe, slavery is OK, and I'd better go get my skin rash checked out by the priests. To avoid those conclusions we start introducing rather arbitrary distinctions in the types of literature contained in the Bible (Genesis 1–11 doesn't count, ceremonial vs. moral law, Paul trumps Moses). We also start to interpret things in their cultural context, but only to a limited extent. This is where I started ask awkward questions. When the Church of England was debating whether women could be ordained as priests (early 1990s), I was attending Bible studies where we studied the minutiae of Paul's teaching and tried to apply it unchanged to our own lives. However, the people around me were in favour of women priests. When it came to Paul's teaching on women, suddenly it had to be interpreted in its cultural context or the particular circumstances of the churches he was writing to. But why weren't we taking the same approach to the rest of his teaching. There were no rules on which bits to interpret which way. I found it intellectually inconsistent, and it made me question the basis of my faith.

Having rejected that view, it took me some years to piece together an alternative that I find tenable and does not result in me rejecting the faith (which I never wanted to do). I'm still working towards what the practical implications of my new approach are, and the books I mentioned above may help with that. What I do find is that I have a higher regard for the Bible and more desire study it than I did previously, even though some may describe me as having a lower view of scripture.

Where I am, there is a lot less certainty than there used to be. Perhaps one of attractions of the conservative view of inspiration is that we can believe that the Bible gives us all the answers. But I can no longer believe that that is true. Perhaps the Bible just asks the questions.

[Nothing here is intended to offend or criticise others, it is simply an account of my own intellectual and spiritual journey.]

Robert Phillips said:

David Paul said:

I found this thread more interesting when folks were fabricating out-of-thin-air guesses about Goliath's death...and that was pretty boring and tedious.

The only  reasonable answer to the conundrum is to realize that with the stone impact Goliath was only merely dead, but after he was beheaded he was really most sincerely dead.

(with suitable apologies to the wizard).

Finally!

Even though it was likely just a throw-away comment intended for humor, someone has actually honed in on the fact that Goliath dies...twice.

David Paul said:

Robert Phillips said:

David Paul said:

I found this thread more interesting when folks were fabricating out-of-thin-air guesses about Goliath's death...and that was pretty boring and tedious.

The only  reasonable answer to the conundrum is to realize that with the stone impact Goliath was only merely dead, but after he was beheaded he was really most sincerely dead.

(with suitable apologies to the wizard).

 

Finally!

Even though it was likely just a throw-away comment intended for humor, someone has actually honed in on the fact that Goliath dies...twice.

It's good to see that not everyone needs to have a house fall on them to get the picture.

Jonathan Pitts said:

Can I suggest that neither the author of 1 Samuel nor David knew at exactly which moment Goliath died?

David Paul said:

You can...but what about the Holy Spirit? Are you suggesting the inspiration behind what we have in the text was guessing, or taking pot shots?

Jonathan Pitts said:

As I opened my first post on this thread: I may have a different approach to interpreting scripture to you, but I'll try to help.

I do not consider the Bible to be necessarily inspired in the sense that you mention. I just don't know to what extent each author was in touch with and influenced by the Holy Spirit. What I do see is that much of the Bible shows its human origins.

Yes...and no. There is clear human "input" in Scripture...but NOT origin.

Jonathan Pitts said:

1 Samuel does not claim to be anything other than a historical record of a particular place at a particular time.

Actually, 1 Samuel makes no such claim. As my above statement pointed out, 1 Samuel (and all the rest of Scripture) is NOT just a story...and it is NOT just history. What it is...is PROPHECY. From b'reishiytth in Genesis to amein in Revelation, the whole thing is one contiguous, highly interconnected prophecy.

Jonathan Pitts said:

I expect it to contain the minor inconsistencies that are found in most human work, such as the one that started this thread.

Thing is, the "inconsistency" that started this thread isn't an inconsistency. It is intentional prophecy. The inability of folks to recognize that is a result of a prophetically declared phenomenon--the famine of the word. This picks up on the thread I started about Grant Osborne's book on hermeneutics. While it is a huge topic/issue, two things are in play here. First, as I've indicated in comments above, there has been precious little application of hermeneutic principles in this thread. Instead, people have done the "Judges" thing of interpreting whatever is right in their own eyes--basically fabricating ideas. What hasn't been done is "let Scripture interpret Scripture". That said, the entire process of Biblical hermeneutics is broken in a fundamental way. The only possible way to understand the Bible is prophetically, yet that is the one way which is almost completely refuted, due to the reaction against Augustine's (and others') application of allegorical interpretation. Prophetic interpretation is similar, on the surface, with allegorical interpretation, which can be highly fanciful. For that reason is has been rejected by most schemes of exegesis and hermeneutics. That makes understanding Scripture impossible.

Jonathan Pitts said:

My overall view of the Bible is as a collection of human attempts to understand and express what we know of God (in 1 Samuel, God's actions in history, as the author understands them). As such, it contains much truth about God but expressed through the limits of human understanding. The texts are vital because they tell us what God has done in history and are written by people closer to the events than any other record that we have. The texts have been preserved and approved by Jewish and Christian leaders of the centuries as spiritually uplifting to read and study, and I would not disagree with that. But theI do not believe that they are necessarily inerrant, dictated by God or inspired in the common evangelical sense of the word.

If we could speak one-on-one, I am 100% sure I could convince you otherwise...by showing you hundreds upon hundreds of connected prophecies that link every single book of the Bible with one another. These are prophecies that are essentially invisible to Christianity because of Christianity's broken hermeneutic. However, no one I have shared these connections with has found reason to deny them...primarily because they are undeniable. 

Jonathan Pitts said:

I am currently reading Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity,

Yikes!!!

Jonathan Pitts said:

which so far seems to follow a very similar path and has helped to clarify my thoughts.

I'm glad the sense of confusion is dissipating, but I doubt it will last long. The actual problem isn't being addressed.

Jonathan Pitts said:

If we take a completely conservative view of inspiration, the implications are a one-week creation, no evolution, the earth at the centre of the universe, slavery is OK, and I'd better go get my skin rash checked out by the priests. To avoid those conclusions we start introducing rather arbitrary distinctions in the types of literature contained in the Bible (Genesis 1–11 doesn't count, ceremonial vs. moral law, Paul trumps Moses). We also start to interpret things in their cultural context, but only to a limited extent.

Slavery IS okay. You DO have to get your skin rash checked by the Priest. These are prophetic means of communicating spiritual concepts. There is no such thing as pure freedom. There is only a choice of what kind of slavery you wish to be bound to. Being "free indeed" is identical to "my burden is light"...but it is still a burden that one MUST bear as bond-servant--a word that is identical to the word "slave".

The skin rash is a type of sin. You MUST take your spiritual condition to the High Priest to compare it to His criteria of being "clean" and "holy", i.e. disease free. Because you interpret slavery by American history standards (or something similar, that you equate with "bad") and the rash/priest thing as some pointless, passe ceremonial exercise, you aren't seeing the prophetic intent. EVERY SINGLE LAW of the Bible has prophetic sense.

Jonathan Pitts said:

What I do find is that I have a higher regard for the Bible and more desire study it than I did previously, even though some may describe me as having a lower view of scripture.

Good...keep studying...but think prophetically. It will change everything.

Regarding Goliath...the Book says he was killed twice...BECAUSE he was killed twice. It is about as straightforward as a thing can be.

So just think...what does getting killed twice mean? What does it refer to? Also, who is Goliath? (In other words...let Scripture interpret Scripture.)

Goliath is a type of both Satan and Anti-Messiah. What happens between David and him is a type-fulfillment of Gen. 3:15--Goliath's head most definitely gets "bruised". David is an explicit type of Messiah. There are numerous other prophetic pictures, but the "dead, and dead again" aspect is a type of the second death--eternal death (Rev. 2:11, Rev. 20:6, 14; Rev. 21:8 & Mt. 23:15).

These verses are not "unsure", and not "evidence of the documentary hypocrisy hypothesis", and are not "evidence of human tampering".

They are prophecy.

 

George Somsel said:

You have just entered the Twilight Zone.

I've got my tin-foil hat at the ready, George. [:)]

Of course, you are simply wrong.

George Somsel said:

Because you say so? 

No...because an infinitely intricate web of prophecies make it so.

But, I honestly doubt you will ever accept any of it.

I'm fine with that.

Nevertheless, take your vitamins and hang around awhile...you'll see.

George Somsel said:

 

Nor will anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

Once again, you are correct. It takes quite a few more than that to see how YHWH reveals His prophetic plan. Of course, it also takes eyes to see. [:|]

David Paul said:

No...because an infinitely intricate web of prophecies make it so.

I would be interested to see this intricate web, if you could post it.  We can then use our Logos Bible Software to prove or disprove its intricacy.

David Paul said:

Joseph Turner said:

David Paul said:

No...because an infinitely intricate web of prophecies make it so.

I would be interested to see this intricate web, if you could post it.  We can then use our Logos Bible Software to prove or disprove its intricacy.

 

It will be forthcoming...but not anytime very soon. Intricate things are very time-consuming.

What this is is a concept that the bible is a puzzle to be decoded.  I don't buy that concept.

Joseph Turner said:

David Paul said:

No...because an infinitely intricate web of prophecies make it so.

I would be interested to see this intricate web, if you could post it.  We can then use our Logos Bible Software to prove or disprove its intricacy.

Ditto.

I fully affirm that Goliath was a type/picture/foreshadowing of Satan, and David was that of Christ (obviously this is huge e.g. through the Psalms). I also agree that what happened on that battle field was a picture of Gen 3:15 and Christ's defeat of Satan ['s power] on the cross. There is a lot of prophetic work happening in that encounter, which I also affirm as historical.

Yet, I'm not sure I follow what David Paul is saying. At least fully. There is a thread/web of cohesion in the Bible, and it is all a revelation of God's redemptive/historical plan, but it sounds like DP is saying more than that. Some kind of a document, which I hope has been worked on, would be insightful.

Here's one think I find interesting. Sleiman suggested an exegesis that is at least plausible for the text we've been talking about. Does accepting it deny the Spirit's inspiration of the text? Does it cause you to misinterpret other areas of Scripture?

One think I appreciate in many of these comments (though not the one's that seems to be digging at each other) is the upholding of 2 Tim 3:16. Even though we may not approach 1 Sam from the same hermeneutical angle, most here say that it is God-breathed.